“Seeing People Fairly” Is Not the Same as “Accepting Everything”—Multiculturalism and Egalitarianism Taken Too Far

Recently, while writing about overseas news and social issues, I have said several times that we should not judge people based on prejudice.

In particular, I have repeatedly argued that it is wrong to treat all Muslims alike simply because some individuals have committed crimes or caused problems.

I still believe that.

However, that does not mean I have a favorable impression of Islam. I do not—not at all.

I want to be clear about that.

If anything, when I look at its values and the friction it creates with society, I find it a religion I simply cannot understand.

Conflicts justified by religion, restrictions on women’s rights, a lack of freedom of expression, and clashes with the societies to which Muslims immigrate: both the news and history offer many things that I consider problematic.

But there is a distinction that must be made here.

An assessment of a group and an assessment of the individual standing in front of you are two different things.

Even if statistics showed that problematic behavior was more common within a particular group, that would not mean the person in front of you would behave the same way.

I am critical of Islamic doctrine and its social influence. But that does not mean I intend to treat every Muslim I meet for the first time as a criminal.

I judge what kind of person someone is by that person’s own words and actions.

That is what “fairness” means to me.

The Freedom Not to Eat Pork and the Demand That Others Not Eat It

I take the same view of multiculturalism.

Suppose Muslims choose not to eat pork for religious reasons. That is their freedom, and it is no one else’s business.

But if that turns into demands such as “Do not serve pork in school lunches” or “Change everyone’s meals to accommodate our religion,” then it becomes an entirely different matter.

The freedom not to eat something is not the same as demanding that other people not eat it.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with preparing an alternative meal for yourself if you can. But I cannot agree with demanding that such an alternative be provided as an entitlement and calling it discrimination when that demand is not met.

In Europe, particularly in countries such as Germany, debate continues over religious and cultural demands from immigrants and the existing rules of the societies receiving them.

What troubles me in these debates is the idea that only the receiving society should be expected to make concessions.

If we are serious about making multiculturalism work, then those who have moved to a country should also have an obligation to respect its culture and customs.

Coexistence means making mutual concessions. It does not mean one side continuing to give way unilaterally.

Basic Human Rights and Prioritizing Citizens Are Not Contradictory

Another thing I question is how the word “equality” is used.

Basic human rights must be respected regardless of nationality or religion.

No one should be subjected to unjustified violence or deprived of their freedom without legitimate reason simply because they are a foreign national.

But that is a separate issue from policies that prioritize a country’s own citizens.

When it comes to employment, education, social security, and similar matters, it makes no sense to call every policy discriminatory merely because the state designs it to prioritize the interests of its own citizens.

A state has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its citizens. This is especially true of systems funded by taxes, where lines must be drawn around who is eligible and what level of support is guaranteed.

Respecting the basic human rights of foreign nationals is entirely compatible with the Japanese government prioritizing the interests of Japanese citizens.

If no distinction based on nationality were permitted at all, the institution of the state itself could not function.

Voting rights, social security, and residence status all presuppose distinctions based on nationality or residency status.

The issue is not whether distinctions exist, but whether there is a rational basis for them.

Do Not End the Debate with the Word “Discrimination”

What I find most problematic is the attempt to shut down any discussion about where these lines should be drawn simply by labeling it “discrimination.”

How far should religious demands be accommodated? How many immigrants should be accepted? How should the rights of citizens and foreign nationals be balanced?

These are policy questions that should be debated and decided within the society receiving immigrants. They are not matters for outsiders to interfere in.

Yet if anyone who voices a different opinion is immediately labeled a bigot, meaningful debate becomes impossible.

I have a critical view of Islam. I will not hide that or pretend that I think its culture and religion are wonderful.

At the same time, I will not condemn an individual based on that impression alone.

Being free of prejudice is not the same as being free of critical judgment.

And treating an individual fairly is not the same as accepting every demand that person makes.

If we are to make multiculturalism work, this distinction becomes even more important.

What I want is not unconditional tolerance, but fair rules.

We should respect other people’s values. But we are not obligated to abandon our own.

If people demand “respect for diversity” while insisting that the culture and values of the receiving society need not be respected, that is a remarkably convenient form of diversity.